On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 1:40 PM, David Nyman wrote:
>> >
>> And I've been questioning, this is the fourth time, which word or words
>> don't you understand.
>>
>
> It is tedious to ask you again to reconsider your use of words about
> whose application we clearly disagree rather fundament
On 28 May 2017 at 18:10, John Clark wrote:
> On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 6:51 AM, David Nyman
> wrote:
>
> >>
>> I ask again, which word didn't you understand?
>>
>>
>>
>> >
>> I've been questioning the implicit commitments that your wording
>> conceals.
>>
>
> And I've been questioning, th
On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 11:23 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> you introduce an ambiguity by eliminating the "1p" precision. [...] You
> eliminate the FPI by eliminating the subject.
But you've completely forgotten IHA.
John K Clark
--
You received this message because you are subscribed
On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 6:51 AM, David Nyman wrote:
>>
> I ask again, which word didn't you understand?
>
>
>
> >
> I've been questioning the implicit commitments that your wording conceals.
>
And I've been questioning, this is the fourth time, which word or words
don't you understand.
con Valley.
I was able to figure out it was Bruno Marchal who said the
following:
> Yes. John Clark proceeds like that too. Saying "peepee" when
we introduce the needed pov distinctions.
And John Clark will continue to say "peepee" when Bruno Marchal
insist
On 28 May 2017 2:09 a.m., "John Clark" wrote:
On Sat, May 27, 2017 David Nyman wrote:
>
>> >
>>
>> Data feels something?
>>
>
>
> >
> Yes.
>
>
>
>>
>> >
>> >>
>>
>> Data feels something in a way?
>>
>
>
> >
> Yes.
>
>
> Ah, now I see what you mean. Proof by repetitive
On Sat, May 27, 2017 David Nyman wrote:
>
>> >
>>
>> Data feels something?
>>
>
>
> >
> Yes.
>
>
>
>>
>> >
>> >>
>>
>> Data feels something in a way?
>>
>
>
> >
> Yes.
>
>
> Ah, now I see what you mean. Proof by repetitive assertion.
>
I'm glad you see what I mean, but
On 28 May 2017 12:36 a.m., "John Clark" wrote:
On Sat, May 27, 2017 at 6:18 PM, David Nyman wrote:
> >
>> What is
>> actually
>> being claimed is that consciousness is the way data feels when it is
>> being processed
>> .
>>
>
> >
> Data feels something?
>
Yes.
>
> >
> Data
On Sat, May 27, 2017 at 6:18 PM, David Nyman wrote:
> >
>> What is
>> actually
>> being claimed is that consciousness is the way data feels when it is
>> being processed
>> .
>>
>
> >
> Data feels something?
>
Yes.
>
> >
> Data feels something in a way?
>
Yes.
> >
> W
On 27 May 2017 at 21:20, John Clark wrote:
> On Sat, May 27, 2017 David Nyman wrote:
>
>
>> >
>> it is unscientific to ignore alternative modes of explanation when
>> progress seems to be blocked
>>
>
> Those
> alternative modes of explanation
> are not only
> unscientific
> there a
On Sat, May 27, 2017 David Nyman wrote:
> >
> it is unscientific to ignore alternative modes of explanation when
> progress seems to be blocked
>
Those
alternative modes of explanation
are not only
unscientific
there are a complete waste of time because there is no way, even with
u
air philosophers love to spin consciousness theories
> on the internet, it's easy because no theory can be proved or disproved;
> and that's why armchair philosophers never spin intelligence theories,
> that's hard. Successful intelligence theorists aren't in armchairs, th
s, that's hard. Successful intelligence theorists
aren't in armchairs, they're in Silicon Valley.
I was able to figure out it was
Bruno Marchal
who said the following:
*> Yes. John Clark proceeds like that too. Saying "peepee" when we
> introduce the needed p
13 matches
Mail list logo
